"This is interesting because in actual fact the Neanderthal remains with cut marks are generally found in deposits full of Neanderthal artifacts and not with human artifacts," Stewart said. "This suggests they were eaten by Neanderthals."

Once again, farking old white men over looking the obvious.How are cut marks made? With weapons.Why are cut marks made? to kill.Unless you show me a primitive USDA cuts of neanderthal cave painting, I'm not buying it.STFU and dig your little digs, and let the science tell the story.

well, i'm sure it may have happened, but i sincerely doubt it was across the board. i mean, there have been a lot of people who have eaten people, and that doesn't mean manflesh is on the menu for us all

FloydA:The geographic distribution of so-called "neandertal DNA" is not consistent with what we would expect if it was the result of interbreeding, but perfectly consistent with differences in persistence in both neandertals and humans of the genes that both inherited from their MRCA

This. IANAG, IANAA, IANAPG, IANAPA, but if there's such a stark difference in Neanderthal allele frequencies sub-Saharan/out-of-African how is this due to shared descent? It seems to recommend the answer we've all been (joking and hoping) for: Humans and cavemen farking each other post-Sinai and beyond into Eurasia.

FloydA:It's not that you've learned something that is incorrect. Rather, you've heard one side of an ongoing debate. It's possible that humans and neandertals did interbreed, but it is not "settled science," as it is often described.

I saw a National Geographic piece just yesterday that implied that it was highly likely that there was interbreeding between us and Neanderthals.

They need to update their shiat.

Well, it's an active debate in paleoanthropology right now. It's not impossible, but the evidence is not very convincing. It's not that they are out of date, so much as they have taken a side in an ongoing debate.

It's not really surprising that Nat Geo "chose a side" in the debate, and TBH it's not a surprise that they chose the more "controversial" and "prurient" side. Their job is to sell magazines, after all. Dry discussions about cladogenic events and possible reticulation don't quite seem to have the draw of "we farked some neandertals!" at least not with the general public. Nat Geo is a great organization, but remember that they are "popularizers of science," rather than scientists, so take their articles with a grain of salt - there's usually a lot more (or a lot less) to the story than you'll get out of them. (Popularizations of science are good things; don't get me wrong.)

Note: I am absolutely certain that we tried to mate with neandertals; I'm sure we boinked them and they boinked us. I am just not convinced that there were any fertile hybrid offspring resulting from those matings.

Even if it were possible for humans and Neanderthals to have sex and bare children, those hybrid children would most likely have been infertile. I still like the idea, for some reason. I want to be part Neanderthal!

Other statements by this piece that I mentioned talked about how Neanderthals carried the 'language gene,' and that they probably had a method of communicating (other than grunting and hand gestures). Also some evidence that they used coloring pigment to paint either themselves, or some other surface. And evidence that they adorned themselves with 'jewelry' such as sea shells for ear rings.

Any thoughts on that? Such evidence would contradict the belief that Neanderthals were really stupid.

Hmm, that's odd. I was under the impression that we had neanderthal DNA. Even Fark links seem to mention that now and then.Can you recommend any links that disagree?It kind of angers me that I've been (admittedly passively) learning something incorrect.

It's not that you've learned something that is incorrect. Rather, you've heard one side of an ongoing debate. It's possible that humans and neandertals did interbreed, but it is not "settled science," as it is often described.

The disagreement stems from questions about the sources of the similarity. To use an analogy, I have some of the same DNA as my cousin, but that's not because my dad screwed his mom or his dad screwed my mom (or because I screwed him). Rather, it's because he and I share a grandfather and we both inherited some of grandpa's DNA.

The same might be true of humans and neandertals. The reason that we have some of the same DNA as they do might be because we both descend from a shared ancestor (Homo ergaster) and some of that ancestor's genes persist in both of its descendant lineages.

We can't "rule out" the interbreeding hypothesis, but it has received a lot more hype than the evidence really merits (in my opinion). It's certainly not a settled issue.

But I thought people of pure African descent did not have the DNA in question.

FloydA:Note: I am absolutely certain that we tried to mate with neandertals; I'm sure we boinked them and they boinked us. I am just not convinced that there were any fertile hybrid offspring resulting from those matings.

That is a safe assumption with almost any choice of noun at the end. If there's one thing the internet has taught me it's that if it exists someone, somewhere, at some time has probably tried to fark it.

I saw a National Geographic piece just yesterday that implied that it was highly likely that there was interbreeding between us and Neanderthals.

They need to update their shiat.

Well, it's an active debate in paleoanthropology right now. It's not impossible, but the evidence is not very convincing. It's not that they are out of date, so much as they have taken a side in an ongoing debate.

It's not really surprising that Nat Geo "chose a side" in the debate, and TBH it's not a surprise that they chose the more "controversial" and "prurient" side. Their job is to sell magazines, after all. Dry discussions about cladogenic events and possible reticulation don't quite seem to have the draw of "we farked some neandertals!" at least not with the general public. Nat Geo is a great organization, but remember that they are "popularizers of science," rather than scientists, so take their articles with a grain of salt - there's usually a lot more (or a lot less) to the story than you'll get out of them. (Popularizations of science are good things; don't get me wrong.)

Note: I am absolutely certain that we tried to mate with neandertals; I'm sure we boinked them and they boinked us. I am just not convinced that there were any fertile hybrid offspring resulting from those matings.

Hmm. FloydA, do you know if there is any extant work on reconstructing the Neanderthal genome going on? Has that been discovered anywhere? It occurs to me it ought to be possible in theory to make at least an educated guess as to whether interbreeding was possible by comparative analysis of the genomes of Neanderthals and humans. Not just the DNA sequence, but maybe also the chromosome structure.

I mean, we know of some closely related species that routinely have fertile offspring (wolves/dogs/coyotes, mallards/ brown ducks, polar bears/grizzly bears), some that can interbreed but are only rarely fertile (lions/tigers, horses/donkeys) and some that are closely related but not at all able to interbreed (humans/chimpanzees). It seems to me that it might be worthwhile to investigate the whys and wherefore of the mechanisms of successful hybridization and then take a look at the case for humans and neanderthals. If we can determine whether they would actually have been interfertile by looking at the genes, that might go a long way towards answering the question of the origin of the common genetics - at the very least it might falsify it.

If on the other hand we find out that there is no obvious genetic bar to a fertile hybrid, then the odds are good it has happened - at which point my own prediction is that some of the genetic overlap is due to interbreeding, and some to shared inheritance given that complex answers to this sort of thing are ever so much more likely than simple ones.

I'm thinking this particular topic could do with some interdisciplinary work.

HairBolus:This issue may have been covered in the movie "Quest for Fire", but all I seem to remember of that was Rae Dawn Chong running around in nothing but body paint.

[25.media.tumblr.com image 850x330]

CSB time.

I'd seen QfF when it had its brief theater run. Only movie I ever walked out on. It wasn't anything like what we'd expected based on the advertising. The second sex scene is where we (myself, my brother and my mother) left.

Two years later in my High School sociology class the teacher asks the class if anyone had seen the movie. I'm the only one in the class - so instead of taking up time in class for something that would essentially be a one on one discussion she asked me to stay a couple minutes after the class. She had heard about Quest for Fire in some of the various sociology journals and was wondering if it would be a good movie to show the class to highlight inter-tribal exchanges in early man. She'd never seen the movie - and apparently the "discussions" about the movie she'd read completely neglected to state this was effectively porn. I took pity on her - she was a pretty cool teacher and getting fired over QfF wouldn't be a fitting way to end a HS teaching career at age 27. Maybe I'd have a different opinion now (there are things on teh Intarwebz that cannot be unseen) but that was just too graphic for a HS class. I'd hesitate in a undergrad college level class. She left the school at the end of the year anyway - don't know why, but I don't think she was really cut out to be a HS teacher.

Note: I'm the guy that convinced one of my other teachers to show numerous R rated tit flicks at the in-school, all day cut and hangout holiday party. The big difference was, of course, that everyone who took part in the holiday party knew they were breaking the rules and would keep their mouths shut at home, while an official showing of QfF would probably be complained about to the head of the school district and the entire school board before the day was over.

Mister Buttons:If I'm using crude stone tools and I just killed the neighboring clan of Neanderthals and there's 2 weeks worth of delicious food on the battlefield, and no social stigma against eating it... I'd certainly be all over that.think about it.

FloydA:Cythraul: Given that a lot of us have Neanderthal DNA, our ancestors must have killed and ate them right after sexy-time.The "neandertal DNA in humans" thing is largely the result of misinterpretation in the popular press. Humans and neandertals both have Homo ergaster DNA, but specific alleles persisted at different frequencies in the two clades. The geographic distribution of so-called "neandertal DNA" is not consistent with what we would expect if it was the result of interbreeding, but perfectly consistent with differences in persistence in both neandertals and humans of the genes that both inherited from their MRCA.(Not that this rules out the possibility of neandertal/human hybrids, but it doesn't lend support to that hypothesis either.)

But the lack of Neanderthal alleles in sub-Saharan Africans, according to your hypothesis, would mean that sub-Saharan Africans split off from the human branch before Homo sapiens and Homo Neandertalis split from Homo ergaster.

So, are you saying modern sub- Saharan Africans are a different species?

Hmm, that's odd. I was under the impression that we had neanderthal DNA. Even Fark links seem to mention that now and then.Can you recommend any links that disagree?It kind of angers me that I've been (admittedly passively) learning something incorrect.

It's not that you've learned something that is incorrect. Rather, you've heard one side of an ongoing debate. It's possible that humans and neandertals did interbreed, but it is not "settled science," as it is often described.

The disagreement stems from questions about the sources of the similarity. To use an analogy, I have some of the same DNA as my cousin, but that's not because my dad screwed his mom or his dad screwed my mom (or because I screwed him). Rather, it's because he and I share a grandfather and we both inherited some of grandpa's DNA.

The same might be true of humans and neandertals. The reason that we have some of the same DNA as they do might be because we both descend from a shared ancestor (Homo ergaster) and some of that ancestor's genes persist in both of its descendant lineages.

We can't "rule out" the interbreeding hypothesis, but it has received a lot more hype than the evidence really merits (in my opinion). It's certainly not a settled issue.

/I don't have my references with me at the moment, sorry, but I will try to find something to back me up later this evening.//if I'm sober.///so good luck ;-)

Since we're talking about interbreeding and genes and alleles and anthropology and other things I don't understand nearly as well as I'd like, I figure this is as good a place as any to ask this.

I seem to recall reading or hearing that the genes for red hair arose from Neanderthal DNA. Is that an actual theory, or have I been misled / has it been discarded?

Dr_Gene:But the lack of Neanderthal alleles in sub-Saharan Africans, according to your hypothesis, would mean that sub-Saharan Africans split off from the human branch before Homo sapiens and Homo Neandertalis split from Homo ergaster.

Not necessarily. Remember that we're talking about quite small effective populations here. A few genes could easily have been lost to drift in some populations while being retained in others.

So, are you saying modern sub- Saharan Africans are a different species?

If not, why do they lack Neanderthal alleles?

TBH, I'm not actually convinced that there are no "neandertal alleles" in the Sub-Saharan African gene pool. The sample size used to determine that was around five people, IIRC. That doesn't strike me as sufficient to demonstrate much of anything about the range of variation in Africa. It's an interesting observation that requires more follow up work, but I would not feel secure in concluding anything from that sample.

KiltedBastich:Hmm. FloydA, do you know if there is any extant work on reconstructing the Neanderthal genome going on? Has that been discovered anywhere? It occurs to me it ought to be possible in theory to make at least an educated guess as to whether interbreeding was possible by comparative analysis of the genomes of Neanderthals and humans. Not just the DNA sequence, but maybe also the chromosome structure.

I mean, we know of some closely related species that routinely have fertile offspring (wolves/dogs/coyotes, mallards/ brown ducks, polar bears/grizzly bears), some that can interbreed but are only rarely fertile (lions/tigers, horses/donkeys) and some that are closely related but not at all able to interbreed (humans/chimpanzees). It seems to me that it might be worthwhile to investigate the whys and wherefore of the mechanisms of successful hybridization and then take a look at the case for humans and neanderthals. If we can determine whether they would actually have been interfertile by looking at the genes, that might go a long way towards answering the question of the origin of the common genetics - at the very least it might falsify it.

If on the other hand we find out that there is no obvious genetic bar to a fertile hybrid, then the odds are good it has happened - at which point my own prediction is that some of the genetic overlap is due to interbreeding, and some to shared inheritance given that complex answers to this sort of thing are ever so much more likely than simple ones.

I'm thinking this particular topic could do with some interdisciplinary work.

Yes, the Max Planck Institute published the Neandertal Genome in 2010 (searchable), derived from three individuals. It would be great to see if the two species were genetically compatible, and that would certainly be a good step towards answering the question. If I had grad school to do over again, I'd be really interested in doing that type of interdisciplinary work. I'd live to see it done, and I'm sure someone is already working on it, although I haven't heard anything specific.

If it turns out that we were genetically compatible, then I agree completely that it's almost certain modern humans are hybrids of "Cro-Magnon" and neandertals, no matter what the geographic distribution suggests. Right now, I'd be surprised, but not overly so. My opinions are sure to change as more evidence becomes available.